On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 11:23:30AM -0400, Shane Turner wrote: >> Should I open a bug report to have the packages regenerated, > > No. Releases are never regenerated. That would invalidate signatures > developers sent for the release.[*] > > We'll have to figure out the source of the problem and then try > to avoid it in future releases.
It may be related to the sed problem we were having in the 1.7 RC series. Apparently one of scripts relied upon GNU sed which wasn't installed on people.apache.org. I had been using a custom install of it, but I thought Daniel had fixed the offending script to not require GNU sed. 1.7.2 represents the first release in which I relied upon the system sed, and not my custom one. I *thought* I'd verified the header file prior to posting the release for signing, but apparently not. :( > [*] These signatures are important to the release process because having > multiple signatures proofs the release wasn't made by a single individual > but by the Apache Subversion Project Member Committee which is legally > part of the ASF. This protects individual developers from legal attacks > because the ASF needs to be attacked instead. "Project *Management* Committee" :) -Hyrum -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com/
